For most major groups in the last era of immigration, carrying an ethnically distinct name
was associated with lower occupational
attainment. Native-born sons of Irish, Italian,
German, and Polish immigrant fathers who
were given very ethnic names ended up in
occupations that earned, on average, $50 to
$100 less per year than sons who were given
very “American” names. This represented 2
to 5 percent of annual earnings. [. . .]

Our work also produces several new findings. First, we find that for many groups there
appears to be a causal effect of having been
assigned an ethnic name—an effect due to
both the name and other cultural signals correlated with having been given this name.
This effect has eluded earlier observational
studies, such as Fryer and Levitt’s (2004)
research on black names, and the vast number
of studies using other measures of assimilation. Our adjustment for family characteristics is a powerful control for the possible
influences on name-giving, strengthening the
causal interpretation.

Second, further analyses taking into
account last names allowed us to gain insight
into the mechanism behind the effects of cultural assimilation on achievement. Assimilation may operate by hiding foreign origins or
by displaying an American orientation, even
for people who have recognizably foreign
origins. Our finding that American-sounding
first names were an advantage even for people with recognizably ethnic last names suggests that the signal being sent was one of
mainstream orientation rather than origin.
Our study supports the idea that U.S. society
shared Roosevelt’s perspective: only immigrants who abandoned their foreign affiliations deserved “exact equality.”

This distinction between signaling “origin” and “orientation” is useful for the study
of other forms of group differentiation and
discrimination. For example, one interpretation of the effect of distinctive black names is
that they reveal “blackness” that would otherwise remain hidden. This might play out at
the job search stage in which only paper
applications are being considered. But another
interpretation is that the disadvantage of distinctive naming is not so much in revealing
origins (in this case, skin color) but in revealing orientation (in this case, a cultural orientation away from mainstream white society).
With this latter interpretation, the effect of
distinctive names would persist even in situations, like job interviews, when skin color is
known.

Third, our finding that for some groups—
notably the Russians, who were primarily of
Jewish origin—having an ethnic name has a
positive effect on occupational achievement
has important implications. Scholars are currently challenging the applicability of the
lessons of the past century to recent waves of
immigrants, arguing that the potential for
downward mobility and the advantages of
ethnic networks and enclaves could make it
advantageous for some groups to maintain
their culture of origin (Portes and Zhou 1993;
Rumbaut 1997). Our findings suggest that
this kind of differentiated assimilation is not a
purely contemporary phenomenon. Instead, it
has a strong historical precedent among at
least one group, Russian Jews. This finding is
surprising, given the attention found in scholarship, biography, and literature on the importance for Jews of Americanizing first and last
names. In show business, for example, Jews
considered name changes a crucial ingredient
for success (Bial 2005; Buhle 2004; Lieberson 2010). Yet we find this was not true for
the general population. Being named Moses
or Mordechai did not confer disadvantage—
quite the opposite. 19

On the other hand, the literature on the
Eastern European Jewish immigrant experience attributes advantages to displaying a
strong ethnic identity. Scholars have described
the important role of ethnic aid societies in
Jews’ economic success (Kahan 1978; Kasin-
itz 2008). In a climate of discrimination, the
use of ethnic networks are advantageous for
occupational advancement, particularly for a
minority group that tends toward entrepreneurship and self-employment (Rischin 1977).
Facing discrimination from non-Jews, the
potential benefits of an “American”-sounding
first name are small in comparison to strong
identification with one’s own landsleit.

[. . .] interpretation of the results for Russian immigrants
requires a caveat. Although the vast majority
of these immigrants were Jewish, there were
also Christian immigrants. Part of the positive
gradient we observe for ethnic names may be
driven by the lower occupational earnings of
non-Jewish immigrants, who had less “ethnic”
first names, like John. However, Table 4 shows
that the positive association between ENI score
and occupational income is stronger among
Russians with recognizably Jewish last names,
providing support for the protective effect
suggested by the ethnic enclave thesis. The
1940 sample will allow researchers to further
explore this issue using a larger sample size.
Additional data sources, such as shipping reg-
isters from the turn of the last century, which
sometimes include an indicator for Jewish
ethnicity, may also prove helpful in future
work (Spitzer 2015).

From Patrick to John F.: Ethnic Names and Occupational Success in the Last Era of Mass Migration. Joshua R. Goldstein a and Guy Stecklov. American Sociological Review 1 –22. DOI: 10.1177/0003122415621910

Even i agree that the avg hbd is just a normie with cognitive steroids, i disagree that you can say it without to be equally criticized, ;)

the avg smart is a natural pussy of the power, they don't have the fight-power, they are too conformist, too confortable, they don't want obviously lost their personal advantages.

They don't commit more crimes, directly, but indirectly, they are conivent with most of real terrorist regimes. So they participate, legimitate, help terrorist regimes, this is like to commit indirect crimes, for example, the mass invasion in the western nations.

Think of the commonly accepted averages: Northeast Asian 106, North European 102 ( or variously higher), Ashkenaz 110 (or variously 105-10000). Relatively minute and a fraction of the differences between said races and the dark ones. Any increase in extremely intelligent members of the smallest group should be (and statistically at least, is) outweighed by sheer mass of numbers of the others. When it isn't reflected in outcomes it leaves a few possible explanations: greater in-group nepotism, higher motivation, lower scrupulousness, and/or a faculty for materialism in particular.